nationfandomcom-20200223-history
National Archives/Chambers/4 Four
Category:National Archives Third Amendement: Rights of every human being in Lovia Content I propose a little change of article 2.1 from #Every human being and citizen has the right: ##Of freedom of thought, meaning and religion. ##Of equality, by race, religion, political opinion, language, sex, property, birth or other statuses. ##Of privacy. ##To have personal or common property. ##To be arrested in a trial and to be treated correctly. ##To have a residence. This##To work and to receive education. ##To relax and recreate. ##To live in peace with his or her fellow-men. ##To live in welfare. ##To become a Lovian citizen. to #Every human being and citizen has the right: ##Of freedom of thought, meaning and religion. ##Of equality, by race, religion, political opinion, language, sex, property, birth or other statuses. ##Of privacy. ##To have personal or common property. ##To be arrested in a trial and to be treated correctly. ##To have a residence. ##To work and to receive education. ##To relax and recreate. ##To live in peace with his or her fellow-men. ##To live in welfare. ##To become a Lovian citizen. ##To express him or herself with the purpose of communicating. Correct translations to the official language must be provided when asked and the official language has to be used for all writing of articles, with the exception of literal quotations and local vocabulary. to enlarge the freedom of the Lovians. --Oos Wes (Bès) 05:11, 2 April 2008 (UTC) Talk Gentlemen, I am aware of the fact that both the First and the Second Chamber are only meant for Congressmen and women. Herefor I offer you my sincerest apologies. I wanted to advise the honorable Members of the Congress with some of the accurate knowledge I have achieved at a certain stage of my life. For an internet based constitution, I must admit, this is a work of art. It is a quite a long law text, good content and clear words. The Second Amendment proposed above sure was the most valuable thing to add at this moment. The Third Amendment, proposed by Sir MOTC Ilava, is small but very positive for all of us. Though there is a problem. :To speak their native language, as long as other people can understand them. First of all, why native language? Only your native language, or others as well? And must these be recorded to be sure it is your native language? Then, other people, this is too vague to be adopted in a law text. Please change this, exempli gratiã as long as they make themselves understandable to all". At last I throughsee holes in this sentence. You could conclude you can speak any language you see as your native one, whenever you want, as long as the one you are talking to understands you. Or, you could see it as the possibility to speak your sole native language, to more than one ("other people") who understand it, with the exclusion of any official occassion, because (American) English still is thé national language (11.4). There is a good idea in this sentence, but the words are wrong. I hope you might want to consider adjusting it. Your humble servant, George Matthews 06:23, 2 April 2008 (UTC) :What about: ''to express himself in any language with the purpose of communicating. 06:38, 2 April 2008 (UTC) ::That would be a certain improvement. Then "communicating" replaces the "others"-problem. "Any language" is open, but not bad. I still think we might need something about differences with the use of official languages, (American) English... George Matthews 06:40, 2 April 2008 (UTC) :::Thank you very much for your explanation. This could be of good service. :::Maybe we could do something like this: to express himself in any language with the purpose of communicating. Correct translations must be provided when asked. :::Would this be better? 06:45, 2 April 2008 (UTC) ::::Let's add to the official language and that's good. Then, at last, something on use of other languages in articles should be added... ::::to express him or herself with the purpose of communicating. Correct translations to the official language must be provided when asked and the official language has to be used for all writing of articles, with the exception of literal quotations and local vocabulary. ::::What about this version? George Matthews 06:51, 2 April 2008 (UTC) :::::To me, this looks perfect, but should we not mention in the same sentence the official language is American English in order to get it straight from the start ? 07:19, 2 April 2008 (UTC) ::::::It is I think in article 11 too, but that wouldn't be bad. I like the last proposal. Dear OWTB, would you like to adopt these last adaptions to you proposal? 08:14, 2 April 2008 (UTC) :Surely, I'll do. --Oos Wes (Bès) 14:27, 2 April 2008 (UTC) Town and City Act Nowadays, all separate places are towns, except for the capital, Noble City. Our Constitution does not mention when a place is a town or a city, so I would like to add a section on this subject to the Federal Law. Content * Article 7 - Town and City Act *# All Lovian separate settlements are classified into two denominational groups: towns and cities. *# A town is a separate minor location, governed by a Mayor. *## A town can be: *##* an area of the size of a neighborhood. *##* an area of the size of a neighborhood, including the adjacent neighborhoods. In this case the town's center is seen as the town itself, and not as a separate neighborhood of the town. *##* an area including several neighborhoods. *## A town has at least one full size neighborhood, the town itself. *## The maximum number of neighborhoods within a town, including the town's center, is four. *# A city is a separate major location, governed by a Mayor. *## A city is invariably a group of neighborhoods. *## A city has at least five neighborhoods. *## There is no maximum to the number of neighborhoods within a city. *# A town can turn into a city whenever the number of finished and usable neighborhoods, including the town's center, is five or more. *# A city can turn into a town whenever the number of neighborhoods is lowered to four or less. Talk What do you MOTCs think~of this Federal Law proposal? 18:38, 12 April 2008 (UTC) :To me, this looks great, apart from the fact that I think the mayor of a city will not be too happy if downsized to a city overnight. (smile) 08:10, 13 April 2008 (UTC) ::Well, of course, we will talk to the mayors before something like this happens. By the way, a city won't easily loose its neighborhoods, don't you think so? 08:13, 13 April 2008 (UTC) :::This is great news for Newhaven. This proposal has my full support. 08:15, 13 April 2008 (UTC) ::::Indeed, this act would make Newhaven a city, which it already should have been. 08:20, 13 April 2008 (UTC) Vote A 50% majority is required to enshrine this in the Federal Law. All MOTC can vote. PRO * 07:41, 20 April 2008 (UTC) * 08:38, 20 April 2008 (UTC) * 09:41, 20 April 2008 (UTC) * OWTB 12:18, 20 April 2008 (UTC) * Lokixx 14:38, 20 April 2008 (UTC) * 12:13, 26 April 2008 (UTC) *: with an unanimous majority in Congress. 07:14, 27 April 2008 (UTC) CONTRA none Hamlet Act There is still no act about this and I like to add this to the Federal Law Content * Article 8 - Hamlet Act # Hamlets are Lovian place comparables to neighborhoods and are treated as a part of a town or city. # Hamlets are managed by a Chairman and are under control of a town or city's Mayor. # Places are hamlets if: ## The population is at least 100 and maximum 500. If larger they are considered a town. ## The size ##* is smaller than the normal area of a neighborhood, ##* is equal to a normal neighborhood area, but is mostly occupied by natural or agrarian lots. ## The number of administrative, commercial and industrial occupations can be considered low. Adjustments Original text: * Article 8 - Hamlet and Village Act # Hamlets and villages are treated as part of a town or city and thus have no own mayor or chairman ## Hamlets and villages are places that have small maps ## Villages have larger maps # Hamlets have up to 150 population, villages have up to 500 population, then they are changed into towns and are splitted of from the other town or city # Hamlets have no shops, hotels, and administrative places. Villages have a small amount of shops, hotels, and administrative places. Talk Not bad, but too vague... We should try to make this more clear. 19:21, 23 May 2008 (UTC) :I am new here, remember that Pierlot McCrooke 19:23, 23 May 2008 (UTC) ::Of course, and that's why I am here to help you 19:24, 23 May 2008 (UTC) :::Feel free to make any adjustment to it Pierlot McCrooke 19:26, 23 May 2008 (UTC) ::::after edit conflict 2 - We could make a very good article of this, so let's have a look at what can become better. First of all: if I were you, I wouldn't make two new types of places. Maybe just the hamlets and not the villages. That would be way easier in use. 19:27, 23 May 2008 (UTC) ::Can I change that or is that forbidden Pierlot McCrooke 19:28, 23 May 2008 (UTC) :::Sure you can. =) Shall I do it for the first time? 19:30, 23 May 2008 (UTC) ::::You can do that Pierlot McCrooke 19:31, 23 May 2008 (UTC) Good? 19:38, 23 May 2008 (UTC) :Yes Pierlot McCrooke 19:40, 23 May 2008 (UTC) ::Okay. Anyone a possible adjustment to this proposal? Please say so! 19:44, 23 May 2008 (UTC) ::: In the real world, hamlets have no chairman or mayor or governor, simply the mayor of the town or city is the governing person in the hamlet Pierlot McCrooke 19:49, 23 May 2008 (UTC) :::: Well, in our case it can be like that too. If there is no Chairman, the Mayor automatically governs the hamlet. But if somebody else wants to do so, that should be possibe too I think. 19:49, 23 May 2008 (UTC) ::Why not name that Hamlet Helper, that will be a person who is not actually the leader of the hamlet but instead helps the mayor of the city or town with the hamlet Pierlot McCrooke 19:53, 23 May 2008 (UTC) :::? That would only make it more difficult, isn't it? One name (Chairman) for all that is smaller than a town seems the most easy to me. 20:07, 23 May 2008 (UTC) :::OK Pierlot McCrooke 20:09, 23 May 2008 (UTC) ::::This is an good act Pierlot McCrooke 15:09, 24 May 2008 (UTC) :::::Indeed, as it is right now, it is very good. It will certainly be supported in SC. George Matthews 09:36, 25 May 2008 (UTC) ::::::Can i place this bill in the Second Chamber Pierlot McCrooke 15:05, 27 May 2008 (UTC) :::::::If you think the Congressmen will vote pro, you can do that. It's your decision. 15:08, 27 May 2008 (UTC) ::::::::::I have placed it Pierlot McCrooke 15:18, 27 May 2008 (UTC) Vote A 50% majority is required to enshrine this in the Federal Law. All MOTC can vote. PRO * 15:21, 27 May 2008 (UTC) * Pierlot McCrooke 15:25, 27 May 2008 (UTC) * Marius Ştefan 12:20, 28 May 2008 (UTC) * Robin Ferguson 12:44, 28 May 2008 (UTC) * Enrico Pollini 15:11, 28 May 2008 (UTC) * 15:28, 28 May 2008 (UTC) * Lars Washington 23:44, 28 May 2008 (UTC) * George Matthews 14:25, 29 May 2008 (UTC) (It feels very good to vote in Congress. ) * 14:59, 29 May 2008 (UTC) * Ben (talk) 17:27, 29 May 2008 (UTC) (I agree with George) *: With an unanymous majority! This is the proposal with the largest number of Pro-votes ever, 18:00, 29 May 2008 (UTC) CONTRA none Union Act This is for the Federal Law Content *Unions are groups that consist of people, places or companies **Unions cant be formed without the permission of the king **Unions have always the word union in their name **Unions can disband when there is an conflict in the union *A union is not an politic party and political unions are forbidden, they must be parties. Talk What is this for? 16:00, 31 May 2008 (UTC) :Unions Pierlot McCrooke 16:01, 31 May 2008 (UTC) ::Vakbonden? 16:03, 31 May 2008 (UTC) :::Something similar to that Pierlot McCrooke 16:05, 31 May 2008 (UTC) This act will not go to the Second Chamber because it is not good. Founding and joning the IWO The International Wiki Organization is going to be the successor of the United Wiki Nations, hoping that all wiki nations are joing the organization. Lovia wants to join too and we'll need a normal majority in Congress for that. Please vote as quick as possible. 07:36, 7 June 2008 (UTC) Voting 50% needed PRO * Ben (talk) 14:06, 14 June 2008 (UTC) We cannot afford it to let Lovia an outsider. We need to socialize and to become one with the others. Or the others need to become one with us or we need to find the mid-way. NEUTRAL * Same opinion as George Matthews. Robin Ferguson 12:54, 8 June 2008 (UTC) * I only want the best for Lovia, and now I have noticed two things: 1) Maybe this isn't the best for Lovia at all. 2) if the people doesn't like this, maybe we should reconsider our membership. 14:26, 11 June 2008 (UTC) * I saw how the previous organisation fell from its fundments. I do not think that the wiki's need a succesor (perhaps even a new failure?). Though I am willing to give it a chance if a mojarity in Congress can be made. 07:34, 1 July 2008 (UTC) * With the latest problems in Libertas (!!!), I guess it will become a difficult issue. 07:41, 1 July 2008 (UTC) CONTRA * George Matthews 12:48, 8 June 2008 (UTC) *: Why? I am a great supporter of the IWO, and I think many nations would gain because of their membership. Though I don't think it would be good for Lovia. I am a supporter of the Isolationist Movement in Lovia and I think we are better off without these ties with Adlibita and Libertas that will be too close to be good. George Matthews 12:50, 8 June 2008 (UTC) * 10:50, 12 June 2008 (UTC) (When I see the offensive language spoken by several so-called "top" politicians, I am frightened. Mr Matthews, who is a jurist after all, seems to be right about the possible consequences for Lovia. The Lovian way isn't the Libertan, nor the Maorian or the Adlibitan.) * Pierlot McCrooke 07:43, 7 June 2008 (UTC) (Lovia will get new conflictss) *: 13:24, 5 July 2008 (UTC)